ILLINOIS POLLuTION CONTROL BOARD

January

6,

1972

In

the

Matter

of

#R

70—8

EFFLUENT

CRITERIA

In

the

Matter

of

)

~R

71—14

WATER

QUALITY

STANDARDS

REVISIONS

In

the

Matter

of

WATER

QUALITY

STANDARDS

)

#R 71—20

REVIS1ONS

FOR

IdTRASTATE

WATERS

(SWB--14)

Opinion

of

the

Board

(by

Mr.

Currie)

Water huality standards

prescribing

the

maximum

permissible

concentrations

of various

contaminants

in

the waters of

the State

wero

afo~ted

by

the

Sanitary

Water

Board

in

1967 and 1968.

The

in-

plc~;entatjon

clans

for

these

stream

criteria,

also

made

part

of

the

recnJ~tions,

provided

enforceable

effluent

standards

and.

timetables

for

their

achievement

with

regard

to

biochemical

oxygen

demand

and

suspended

solids

in

oxygen—demanding

wastes.

For

most

of

the

para--

meters

included

in

the

stream

quality

criteria,

however,

no

effluent

standards

were

provided

except

in

the

regulations

applicable

to

waters

within

the

Metropolitan

Sanitary

District of Greater Chicago

(SUP-- 15).

Allowable

discharges

elsewhere

in

the

State

were

left

to

be

determined

by

what

was

required

to

meet

the

criteria

for

stream

quality

outside

the

appropriate

mixing

zone

and

by

unenforceable

quidelines

for

effluent

quality

promulgated

in

Technical

Release

20-22.

Determining

discharge

requirements

on

a

case-by-case

basis

so

as

to

tailor

discnarges to stream quality requirements

is

a very time-

consuming

procedure

that

creates

a

great

deal

of

uncertainty.

Recog-

nizing

the

desirability

of

enforceable

numerical

standards

applicable

directly

to

effluents

discharged,

this

Board

in

one

of

its

first

official

actions,

in

October

1970,

published

for public hearing pur-

poses

a nroposed set of effluent standards

for possible adoption as

a

regulation,

and

e~tensivehearinas were held (~R70—8)

Because

the

standards

prcoosed

were

taken

directly

from

the

e-~istinq

criteria

in

TR

20-22

and

from

the

effluent

standards

appli-

cable

in

the

hetrceolitan

Sanitary

Uistrict,

it

was

assumed

that

they

represented

effTi rent

values

that

~ere

readily

achievable

by

available

technology.

In

fact

however,

they

aopear

to

have

by

and

large

been

taken

verba~in

f~on

the

stream

quality

standards,

and

whether

they

could

be

practJcablv

achieved

was

made

difficult

to

determine

by

the

3

—

401

---

fact that under

the old regulations

and criteria

it

was

permissible

to dilute effluents rather than treating them in order

to meet

the

limits prescribed.

A second proposal for more stringent standards

issued

in February,

1971 was based upon ORSANCO

standards,

which

do

not specifically forbid dilution either.

This Board’s proposal,

on

the other hand, required that the effluent standards

be

met

without

dilution,

for reasons discussed below.

At

the

Board’s

request,

the

Institute

for

Environmental

Quality then contracted

with

Drs.

James Patterson

and Roger

Minear of the

Illinois

Institute

of

Technology

to

investigate

the

technology

for

reducing

the

contaminants

listed.

Their

re--

port

is

a

comprehensrve

literature

survey

describing

contaminant

levels

achieved

in

actual

practice,

together

with

methods

employed

to

achieve

them

and

the

costs

of

doing

so.

We

macic

this

report

widely

available

and

held

further

hearings

in

which

additional

testimony

was

giver,

as

to

the

technical

feasibility

and

economic

reasonableness

of

vartous

numerical

standards

-

On

the

basis

of

all

the

evidence

received,

which

we

have

studied

in

great

detail,

we

substantially

revised

the

proposed

standards

and

have

published

for

final

comments

of

a

proposed

final

draft

that

we

believed

represented

a

degree

of

treatment

readily

attainable

by

standard

available

methods

at

reasonable

cost.

We

held

two

more

days

of

hearings

in

order

to

be

sure

we

had

not

overlooked

any

important

considerations

because

of

the

extensive

changes

we

had

made.

On

the

basis

of

this

additional

testimony

and

comments

we

have

made

a

few

final

changes

and

today

adopt

the

amended

regulations.

Because

of

significant

new

proposals

made

at

the

most

recent

hearings,

we

have

scheduled

further

hearings

on

portions

of

the

proposed

final

draft

dealing

with

permits,

combined

sewer

overflows,

and

effluent

standards

for

deoxygenating

wastes,

which

will

be

held

in

conjunction

with

final

hearings

on

a

proposed

final

draft

(#5.

71—14)

of

additional

water

pollution

regulations.

See

Board

Newsletter

#39

(Dec.

28,

1971).

There

follows

a

section-by—section

discussion

of

the

new

regulation.

104

Definitions,

Most

of

these

definitions

are

taken

from

those

proposed

in

#5.

71-14;

those

not

relevant

to

the

sections

adopted

are

omitted

for

the

time

being.

Several

new

or

revised

definitions

suggested

by

the

Agency

have

been

included

since

publication

of

the

proposed

final

draft

to

clarify

our

original

intention.

Perhaps

the

most

significant

definition

is

that

of

the

term

“effluent”.

Since

the

standards

here

adooted

are

based

upon

practicable

treatment

methods

for

industrial

and

domestic

wastes,

the

definition

makes

clear

that

land

runoff

is

not

covered

by

these

standards

except

when

land

disposal

is

used

for

the

treatment

of

wastewater.

---

Stormwater pollution, while it may be very serious, is left to

be taken care of by the statutory prohibition of water pollution

or by future standards s~ocificallydesigned for the problem.

Discharges of industrial or domestic waste to storm sewers,

however, must meet the effluent standards.

See EPA v. City

of Champaign,

# 71-5lC (Sept.

16,

1971), for a description of the

problem.

S~milarly,whilewastes from such mining—related processes

as coal washing are covered by today’s regulations, separate

hearings

(4R71—25) have been scheduled on standards for mine

drainage, which

is

a type of land runoff posing very special and

very serious problems.

The Agency asked us to

omit

all references

to the federal STORET system of classifying contaminants, on the

ground that such references might limit choice of testing methods.

We disagree.

The STORET materials themselves

are

clear that

alternative methods are allowed,

and

our

Rule 105 expressly so

states.

The

STORET

reference serves only to aid in definition and

to facilitate comparison of data collected by various persons.

The definition of “dissolved” has been

omitted

at the Agency’s request

to leave the question, which is of little importance in these

regulations, to standard testing procedures.

105 Analytical Te~tin~.Testimony favoring prescription of the

famiffar

Standar:

Methods

as

a

guide

for

testing

procedures

was

widespread

and

vehement.

It

was

also

clear

from

the

testimony

that Standard Methods

is not complete in all resp~cte. This fact

plus the desire not to stifle the use of alternative methods

that may be more economical and sufficiently accurate prompted

the inclusion of the escape clause allowing resort to other

generally accepted procedures.

The Agency asked that only those

alternative measures it specified should be allowed, but we cannot

agree to give such decisive authority to one party to a controversy.

401

(a) Dilution.

Removal of contaminants from wastewater is gener-

ally preThrable to dilution to meet standards.

Even if concentra-

tions

are

diluted sufficiently to avoid immediate harm to those

using the stream, excessive reliance on dilution rapidly

exhausts the assimilative capacity of the water, especially if,

as

is often the case,

the effluent standard is more lenient

than the corresponding standard for stream quality.

Thus in order

to make room for future industry

and

population growth, as well

as to keep the waters as clean at practicable rather than seeking

merely marginal compliance with stream quality standards,

it is

desirable to require the employment of readily available treat-

ment methods to reduce as much as practicable the total quantities

of contaminants discharged to the waters before resorting to

dilution either before or after discharge.

See Opinion in IR 70—5,

Mercury Regulations, March 31,

1971; Application of commonwealth

Edison Co.

(Dresden 13),

4 70—21, March

3,

1971.

3—433

---

On

the

basis

of

this

poiicy

the

Board

initially

oroposed

that

the

effluent

standards

he

met

without

any

allowance

for

dilution.

Although

some

industry

sookesmen

challenged

this

in

principle,

most

acknowledged

that

intentional

dilution

in

lieu

of

treatment

should

be

forbidden.

There

was

considerable

controversy,

however,

over

the

nossibi

litv

that

the

absolute

ban on

dilution

might

be

construed

to

oronib~t

the mixing

of

several

streams

contaminated

with

different

wastes before treat-

ment.

Recognizing

that

in

many

cases

more

effective

treatment

can

be

obtained

by

separate

treatment

of

different

waste

streams

at

their

source

but

that

economics

does

not

always

permit

such

separate

treatment,

we

published

a

revised

dilution

standard

proposal

in

August

that

retained

the

general

prohibition

of

dilution

while

leaving

some

room

for

engineering

judgment

as

to

the

desirability

of

separating

or

combaning

waste

streams

for

treatment.

That

revised

proposal,

which

has

generally

~

acceptance,

was

retained

in

the

proposed

final

draft

and

in

today

s

regulation

with

the

addition

of

pne

sentence

making

it

clear

that

the

provision

for

measurement

after

treatment

does

not

undermine

the

general

prohibition

against

dilution

at any stage.

401

(b)

Background

Concentrations.

Pony

cues tions

were

raised

as

to

effluent

reeciremonts

when

water

is

taken

from

a

source

that

already

is

high

in

contaminants

,

the

argument

often

being

made

that

it

is

unfair

to

“oonalize’

a

user

for

contaminants

placed

in

the

water

by

someone

upstream

or

naturally

occurring

in

ground

water

suoplies.

Our

initial

effort

to

dehl

with

this

problem

allowed

such

waters

to

be

discharged

provided

that

they

had

not

been

increased

in

concentration

and

orovoded

that

no

violation

of

the

water

quality

standards

resulted.

This

was

widely

objected

to

as

too

tight,

since

most

water

uses

cause

some

increase

of

concentration,

if

only

through

ova

oration,

and

since

any

water

taken

from

and

returned,

to

a

stream

whose

quality

exceeds

standards

will

cause

a

violation.

We

have

consequently

rephrased

the

proposal

to

state

the

aeplicable

policy

without

confining

absolutes,

much

as

we

have

done

in

the

case

of

dilution.

We

are

not

prepared

sirarly

to

allow

credit

for

background

concentrations,

both

because

to

do

so

wauld

permit

progressive

deterioration

of

stream

auality

as

one

moves

downstream,

and

because

the

evidence

is

that

the

types

of

treat-

ment

necessary

to

meet

the

proposed

standards

are

princinally

limited

by

ultimate

concentrations

and

not

likely

to

he

seriously

affected

by

relatively

low

background

levels.

On

the

other

hand,

we

do

not

wish

to

require

exoensive

treatment

processes

to

be

installed

simply

to

clean

up

what

has

been

put

into

the

water

by upstream users

or to remove traces

of materials

that it

is

not worth the cost of removing.

As

in the

case. of dilution.

it seems best

to leave

the details

to

he

worked

,~out

on

a case—

by—case basis

in the light

of

a

general

er~nc~nle

stated

in

the

regulations.

3

-~

404

---

401

Cc) Averaging.

Our initial proposal was that all numerical

effluent standards be met atall times.

There was overwhelming

testimony urging that averages be allowed in order to allow for

the

norm•fl

fluctuations inherent in any treatment process.

We

agree and have

now

provided for daily composite samples, since the

treatment efficiencies on which the proposed standards are based

are not likely to represent peak values,

and

since the standards

are to he based upon actually attainable results.

In order

to prevent short-term discharges

Cslugs) significantly in excess

of the standards while allo~eñngnatural variations, we have set

a peak value five times the daily average.

The daily average

was suggested by several witnesses and is used by the Agency in

TR 20-24.

Since Publication of the proposed final draft we have

clarified the earlier reference to daily averages and specified that

the rather lenient pH standard, as to which averaging makes little

sense, must be

met

at all times.

402 Violation of Water Quality Standards.

The numerical effluent

standards adopted today are intended as basic requirements

that should be met everywhere as representing ordinary

good

practice in keeping potentially harmful materials out of the waters.

In some cases, because of the low volume of the receiving stream

or the large quantities of treated wasted discharged, meeting

these standards nay not suffice to assure that the stream complies

with water quality standards set on the basis of what is necessary

to support various water uses.

In such cases the very nature of

water quality standards requires that additional measures be taken

beyond those required by ordinary good practice to reduce further

the discharge of contaminants to the stream.

This would not be

so if effluents were all required to be as clean as the receiving

stream, but in recognition of economic hardship we have refrained

from imposing such a requirenent across the board.

What additional

measures are required can be determined only on the basis of more

detailed consideration of each stream in accordance with the statutory

requirement that different needs may dictate different standards.

Rule 402 states the principle that discharges causing violations

of the water quality standards are forbidden, as was the case

under the earlier regulations, and states basic considerations

for determining which of a number of contributors to an overloaded

stream must take measures to abate the problem.

At the Agency’s

request an additional sentence has been added to spell out the Agency’s

responsibility.

403 Offensive Discharges.

This is a slightly modified version of

the present pr&iThflion on the discharge of nuisance materials

to any waters, requiring the equivalent of primary treatment

everywhere.

A nuisance anywhere is unacceptable.

The Agency’s

suggested language has been adopted.

404 Deoxy~nati~j

Wastes. This important section has been deferred

pending turtheriiearings on Institute suggestions.

3—405

---

405

Bacteria.

Because

of

revised

dates

suggested

by

EPA,

we

have

deferred

‘this

Rule

pending

resolution

of related issues with respect

to

the

same

waste

sources

after

the January hearings.

406

Nitrogen.

The

evidence

is

clear

that

for

too

.ong

the

oxygen

demand. exerted by ammonia

in domestic wastes has been over-

looked in the emphasis on reduction

of five—day BOD.

The State

Water

Survey

has

conclusively

shown that reduction

of ammonia

from

the

larger

sources

feeding

the

Illinois

River

is

necessary

if

existing standards

for

dissolved

oxygen,

essential

to

an adequate

fish population,

are to be

met.

This

is

exactly the

sort

of

testimony that

is required,

as discussed in connection

with

Rule 402 above,

in order

to assure

that

the

water

quality

standards

are complied

with.

There was extensive

testimony

as

to the

availability

of methods

for reducing

ammonia

in

effluents,

and

although

several

witnesses believed

the technology was

not sufficiently proven

in actual operation,

we

are convinced that nitrification can

be

satisfactorily accomplished

for

a reasonable price

by

a second

stage

of biological treatment.

The testimony of Edwin Barth

and of Dr.

Clair Sawyer, both of whom are intimately

familiar

with actual facilities

for nitrification,

is particularly effective

on

this

point.

The Metropolitan Sanitary District, which

is

principally affected by our oroposal,

is committed

to emoloying

nitrification.

Although Dr.

Sawyer’s testimony establishes

that

an

effluent

of

2.5

mg/l can

be achieved even

in

winter

ho

constructing

a

large

enough

tank,

we

have

accepted

~he

Sanitary

District’s

suggestion

of

a

slightly

relaxed

winter

standard

in order

to save costs in light

of the Water Survey’s assurance

that such

an effluent will

not jeopardize oxygen levels

in

the

Illinois

River.

We

do

not

in

this

record

have

sufficient

information

to

enable

us

to

set

ammonia

effluent

standards

for

other

waters,

although

the

possibility

of

setting

them

on

the

basis

of

dilution

ratios,

as

in

the

case

of

BOJ),

is worth exoloring in future

hearings.

It

is

likely that ammonia reductions elsewhere

will prove necessary in order to meet stream standards either for

oxygen

or for ammonia itself, which

in relatively

low

concentrations

may be toxic

‘to fish.

The Agency should of course consider such

questions

in passing on individual permit

aoolications.

But we

think

it

appropriate

not

to

delay

adoption

of

the

standards

we

know

to

be

necessary

in

the

Illinois

River

while

determining

what standards are necessary elsewhere.

Earlier

drafts

contained

effluent

standards

for

nitrates

and

for

total

nitrogen.

That

nitrates

can

pose

a

uroblem

wi,1,h

respect

to

the

safety

of

public

water

supplies

is

clear,

and

is

recognized

in

existing

water

quality

standards

on

the

subject.

Dr.

Sawyer’s

testimony,

as

well

as that

of’

hr.

Barth,

is convancinc

that

the

technology

is

available

for

denitrification

be

biological

means

at

costs

that

appear

reasonable

where

reoui rc:L

While

the

ossibility

of

setting

effluent

standards

for

n

trotos

based

3

*

406

---

~pon dilution ratios

is again

an attractive

one, the present

regulation

leaves that question

for future resolution

in order

not

to delay the adoption of other urgent provisions.

Once

again denitrification

is now required wherever

it is necessary

~o meet water quality standards.

Th7

Phosphorus.

Despite continuing controversy,

there is sufficient

~:onsensusimplicating phosphorus as the controlling element in

:tany

cases of undesirable algal blooms to justify requiring the

of

the

readily available technology for reducing phosphorus

:~n

sewage

effluents in appropriate cases,

We did so with regard

to

Lake

Michigan, where phosphorus

is perhaps the most serious

rontaminant,

in

#R 70—6

(Jan.

6,

1971).

Rules and Regulations

ThB~-l1

recognized the need for phosphorus control in the Fox

River basin by requiring that treatment plants in that area provide

for

phosphorus removal when treatment technology becomes practicable.

Thero

is

no doubt of

its

practicability today.

See North Shore

Sanitary

District v.

EPA, PCB 71—36

(June

9,

1971)

,

detailing

The ~lans of that district to comply with the Lake Michigan regulation.

The

need for phosphorus control

in

the Fox basin was confirmed

testimony received in the present hearings and in a special

~oardmeeting on ~thesubject in November,

1970.

The River and

tributary lakes are clogged with nuisance blooms of algae,

and

is

time

to

activate the requirements

of

SWB—ll.

In general the evidence indicates that by and large phosphorus

a

serious problem

in lakes and other impoundments where particles

ive

a significant residence time, but not in flowing Illinois streams

anart from the Fox with its lake sources.

We wrestled with the

idea of requiring phosphorus reductions

in all streams tributary

to

lakes or reservoirs, but today’s regulation postpones that

auestion for want of an adequate definition of the bodies of water

that should be included.

Again, the water quality standards

proscribe nuisance algae blooms,

and

water quality standards for

phosphorus have been proposed in #R 71-14.

In individual cases

a phosphorus removal requirement could be based on those provisions

in the absence of

a specific regulation.

408 Additional Contaminants.

This important list contains specific

effluent. numbers for a large number of contaminants, based largely

upon evidence as to what is achievable through standard treatment.

A grace period is allowed for constructing the necessary facilities,

in the case of existing waste sources.

For new sources immediate

compliance

is required.

We do not repeal the existing standards

of SWB-l5;

to do so would leave a gap of some years during which

no limits would apply.

A number of witnesses objected in principle to the establish-

ment of any uniform state-wide standards,

pointing to the statutory

provision for different standards

to meet different conditions

as

authority.

We entirely agree

that

there are some situations

in

which the water available for dilution of an effluent in the receiving

stream justifies

a somewhat relaxed standard;

if we did

not, many

of

the

jevels

in this

tab

e

~ould

he

considerably

tighter.

We

also

---

agree, as has been shown above,

that under some conditions of low

-flow or numerous waste

sources, discharge requirements considerably

stricter than those in the table will be necessary.

But the

fact that some different standards are required for different cases

does not mean that there are no minimum standar’ds that can be re-

quired to be met on a state—wide basis.

There

is nothing new about uniform

minimum

requirements.

The

old Air Pollution Control Board, under a similar statutory

direction,

adopted state-wide particulate emission regulations

that for most industrial sources were the same regardless of where

the source was located, on the basis of the desirability of

employing readily available technology to prevent local nuisances

and the unnecessary exhaustion of assimilative capacity every-

where, and in order tó further the established federal and

state policy of preventing unnecessary degradati~nof clean

air.

We are now considering the adoption of more stringent

measures, such as the outlawing of coal burning for residential

use,

in parts of the Chicago area in order to meet the air

quality standards

(#R 70—15).

Similarly,

in the field of water,

existing state-wide regulations require not only primary

treatment to prevent local nuisances but secondary treatment

as well,

and that requirement has been long accepted as represent-

ing the minimum acceptable treatment to avoid unnecessary de-

gradation.

What we are proposing today

is

a comparable require-

ment for a number of additional contaminants.

As shown by

the careful tabulation of Mr. Roy Weston,

a prominent consult-

ing engineer who testified for the Illinois Petroleum Council,

the bulk of the values here proposed can be achieved by treatment

whose capital cost is considerably

less than that of secondary

municipal sewage treatment,

a cost that has long been accepted

as a reasonable minimum without regard to the nature of the

receiving stream.

A number of witnesses who argued for varying effluent

standards on the basis of stream assimilative capacity agreed

that there should be uniform effluent standards requiring the

best available technology for removal of toxic materials, such

as r~anyon the list

in this

Rule,

in order, for example,

to

avoid toxic concentrations at the point of discharge.

The

concept of

a uniform minimum requirement was specifically endorsed

by Mr. Weston in

a paper submitted for the record.

3

—

408

---

“It

is believed that effluent standards should be

established utilizing the Pollution Abatement level of

technology

as

a minimum.

.

*

.

This level of abatement

could be called

“Good

Practice.”

As

an

illustration,

85 percent POD removal for

all municipal effluents

could be established

as

a

“Good Practice”

level of

pollutant abatement.

.

.

.

In

a similar manner,

a

~‘GoodPractice’

minimum level of pollution abate-

ment could be established

for each specific pollutant.

In case “Good Practice’

provides pollution abatement

in excess

of that required to meet established stream

standards,

regulatory agencies could rationalize that

this condition fulfilled the enhancement requirements

of modern law.

.

.

.

“Good Practice” should be

established

at the level

of pollution abatement that

will not create undue economic hardship and will satisfy

most, but not

all,

pollution abatement requirements.”

Particularly

instructive

are the observations of

Dr. Wesley Pipes,

Professor

of

Civil

Engineering

and

of

Biological

Sciences

at

Northwestern

University,

who

testified

on

behalf

of

Abbott

Laboratories:

“Materials which function only as toxic agents should

be eliminated from the water

as much as possible.

Barium,

cadmium,

lead,

chromium, mercury,

selenium,

and silver are examples

of materials which are

not

nutrients but toxic

at high enough concentrations.

I believe that these materials should be removed

from

wastewaters and recovered

for re—use to the extent

that recovery

and re-use is ecologically sound.

.

this point

is reached when

the recovery and re-use

activities create more of

a pollution problem than

the original waste.

When this point

is reached,

the waste should then be diluted so that

the concentration

of the material

is below

the toxic concentration.

Materials which serve

as nutrients are desirable

at

certain concentration ranges but produce detrimental

effects at concentrations

either

above

or below the

desirable range.

Included

in

this category are

biodegradable organic matter,

ammonia, nitrate,

phosphate, copper,

iron,

and

zinc.

Cyanide

and phenols

3

—

409

---

are

organic

compounds

which fit into this category

in a slightly different manner

than

the rest since they

are

toxic tc most organisms

and

nutrients for only

a

few.

The objective of waste disposal for nutrient

materials should be to get the elements back into

circulation in living organisms.

.

.

.

The

rate of

~disposalrust be kept below the rate at which the

materials

can

be

utilized

by

the

desired

ecological

community.

Materials

which

are

inert

dissolved

solids

can

be

allowed

in

relatively

high

concentrations

in

some

ecosystems without injuring aquatic life.

Total

dissolved solids including sulfates and chlorides

can cause osmotic pressure problems for aquatic life

at high concentrations but the limit on these materials

is usually set b~

some

other water quality consideration.

Removal

of these materials from wastes is not considered

to be economically justifiable at present and, except

when present in extremely high concentrations, they

are

disposed

of

by

dilution.

Parameters

of

gross

pollution

should

be

kept

as

low as possible.

.

.

.“

what limits are needed would be an overwhelming administrative

task; “the most appropriate questions to ask at this time”

are

rather

“what

can

reasonably

be

achieved

in

terms

of

percent

reductions

and

percent

removals

by

presently

available

waste

treatment

processes.

.

.

(and)

how

much

4oes

it

cost

to

make

use of these presently available processes?” Dr. Pipes

presented

a

proposed

regulation

“intended

to

describe

a

‘base

level

of

treatment’

or

the

treatment

which

every

industry

and

municipality

in

the

State

of

Illinois

should

be

required

to

provide

as

a

matter

of

good

housekeeping.”

Such

uniform

minimum

requirements,

he

said,

can

be

supported

as

“requiring

people

who

are

not

doing

that

good

a

job

to

do

what

everybody

else

is paying for.”

We

believe

the

great

weight

of

the

testimony

supports

base-level

uniform

standards

for

the

reasons

given.

*

—410

---

Mr. Wilbur Dodge of Caterpillar Tractor

Co.

presented

a

very

attractive

and

carefully

supported proposal

for

two sets

of effluent standards, with somewhat more lenient values,

still representing

a good measure of treatment,

for discharges

to certain of the State’s larger rivers where

more water is avail-

able for

dispersing effluent contaminants.

After studying

this

numbers

and

other testimony, we significantly altered many

of the figures

in our initial proposal to make sure that we are

not imposing an unreasonable cost on anyone.

These modifications,

in most cases,

are sufficient

to bring

the statewide standard

into

line with

the standard suggested by

Mr.

Dodge

for the larger

streams,

leaving the question of stricter requirements on smaller

streams to be worked out individually on the basis

of stream

needs, We have also accepted

the essence of his proposal with

respect

to peaks and averages, while inserting

a different

conversion

factor.

Except

for the case

of chromium,

as

to

which

Mr.

Dodge’s position

is based upon

a difference of opinion

over toxicity,

this leaves only relatively minor discrepancies

between his proposal and our regulation.

In earlier drafts of this table we described the relevant

concentrations as those of “dissolved” materials in

a number of

cases.

This was based upon

a misunderstanding

as to the tests

prescribed in the federal STORET data system.

We have been informed

that in fact

the federal system generally refers

to the total

amount of any contaminant present, whether dissolved or suspended;

that it is important to reduce suspended

as well as dissolved

contaminants because upon dilution in the stream they may go

into solution,

as well

as because of the possibility of direct

injury to aquatic life or harmful depositions on

the bed of

the

stream;

and that

the basic treatment processes contemplated

by the proposed standards, namely, coagulation,

sedimentation,

and filtration,

will readily allow removal of suspended as well

as

of dissolved contaminants to the levels described.

We

therefore substituted

“total”

for

“dissolved”

in the table

in

the proposed final draft and in the

final regulation, exc~pt

for

the specific references to total dissolved solids and to

dissolved

as well as total iron.

A discussion

of each contaminant

in the table follows.

Arsenic.

Our earlier proposed standard of 0.05 mg/l was derived

from existing stream quality criteria

for public water supplies.

To require that effluents meet

this standard would require that

effluents, even to streams not designated

for water supply use,

be clean enough to drink.

While both

Dr.

Patterson

and Mr. Weston

report that arsenic effluents have been known to be reduced

as low as

to

0.05

mg/i

by standard methods

of coagulation,

sedimentation,

and filtration

at reasonable

cost,

the experience

on which these results

are based

is rather meager and appears

to be largely

that of plants

for treating water for drinking,

rather than of facilities for treating

the much higher concentrations

---

that may well be found in certain industrial wastewaters.

The difficulty of transferring results to higher influent

concentrations

in

the case of arsenic

is compounded by

the fact

that,

in contrast

to most metals

in the

table,

effluent cuality

is said

to be determined

not

so much by maximum solubility

as

by

a relatively fixed percentage removal capability:

Both Patterson

and Weston report results principally

in terms of

80-95

reduction.

Weston gives

the

range of effluent concentrations

achieved by standard processes

as from

0.05

to 0.5 mg/l.

Abbott

Laboratories,

the only industry testifying to

a specific arsenic

problem,

said

its present effluent was within the present 1.0

mg/i guideline

of TR2O-22 and expressed confidence that it could

by more sophisticated

treatment achieve an effluent

of 0.25

mg/I, which

is within the range suggested by Weston.

Mr. Dodge,

who stressed that stream dilution and standard treatment for water

supply purposes should provide

a good measure of protection

or.

the larger rivers,

suggested

a standard of 0.4 mg/l

for discharges

to those waters,

?\bbott further suggested different standards

for pentavalent and

fqr the more dangerous trivalent arsenic,

but

for

the reasons given by Dodge and

the impracticability

of

distinguishing

the two

forms analytically we think

a single

standard will suffice.

On the basis

of the foregoing evidence,

we today adopt

an effluent standard of 0.25 mg/i of total arsenic, which

is

well within the range of concentrations

found

by

Patterson and

Weston, close

to that suggested by Dodge,

and confirmed by

the

experience of Abbott, which is the most directly refevant to

the issue before us.

This

level of arsenic, moreover,

is below

the water quality criterion for aquatic life,so that meeting

it

should assure protection on that score.

If

low dilution ratios

on particular streams result in concentrations high enough to

interfere with

such other protected uses as stock watering

(see Dodge),

special abatement measures

can be taken

as required.

Barium.

Barium is readily reduced by precipitation and filtration,

according

to Weston,

to levels of

1

to

2 mg/I.

Patterson testified

that an effluent standard of

2.0 mg/i would leave ample leeway

above theoretical solubility

to allow

for the vagaries

of actual

operation.

There was no contrary evidence,

With drinking water

standards at 1.0 mg/i

and aquatic life standards at

5.0,

an effluent

of 2,0 mg/i should pose few problems,

and we here adopt

that

standard.

Boron.

There is very little information

as to the technology

for controlling boron,

for

it ha~seldom presented problems.

Patterson says small scale data indicate

it can be distilled,

but distillation

is costly.

The sole basis

for boron water quality

limits

in

the

low parts~per-millicnrange

is

to protect

irrigated

plants.

We omit boron from today’s

regulation because

any instances

of interferencewith agriculture may be handled individually

on

the basis

of water quality standards,

in the absence of information

as to available

and inexpensive

treatment methods.

3—

412

---

Cadmium.

This metal

is highly toxic both

to fish and

to man,

with

water quality standards for both uses

in the

0.01 mg/l range.

It

is

on Pipes’s list

of elements

that should be kept out of

the

water

to

the

extent

practicable.

Dodge

recommends

an

average

effluent

standard

of

0.01

even

for

large

rivers

because

of

cadmium’s

extreme toxicity.

By precipitation

and filtration,

both Patterson and Weston

report,

effluents

as low as 0.1 mq/l of cadmium have been achieved

at low cost;

Patterson gives 0.15 mg/I

as

a value that can be

achieved with

a reasonable margin of safety.

Lower values still

are

attained

by

ion

exchange,

which

is

made

economically

attractive

as an alternative

by

the

high

value

of

the material recovered.

While lower concentrations

may

be

required

on

low—flow streams

to protect aquatic life,

the present regulation incorporates

0.15

mg/I

as

a readily attainable

level that should suffice in most

cases as

a base level

of treatment.

Chloride.

We initially proposed

a chloride effluent standard

of 250

ing/l,

but this,

together with sulfate and total dissolved

solids, was the subject

of

a storm of criticism.

It

is clear that

such

a standard would impose the highest treatment costs of any

here under consideration

in order to do the least good.

While

such techninues as distillation, reverse osmosis,

and electrodialysis

are cortainly feasible,

Weston

gives their cost as five to ten

times that

of the precipitation

and filtration that are adequate

to remove most of the contaminants

in the table.

Moreover,

all

these methods produce

a brine residue that is itself

a serious

disposal problem.

On the other side of the

coin, these contaminants

are by

far

the most innocuous on the

list.

Fish

can generally

tolerate up to 1000 mg/i

of total dissolved

solids,

and

the 250

figure for chloride

is based on minor taste considerations.

Given

the extremely high cost of treatment

and the probability

that

effluents

in many cases

will

he significantly diluted

in the

stream,

we here omit

the chloride

and sulfate standards,

relying

on

a total dissolved solids standard

of 3500 mg/I

(see below for

exact standard)

to protect against the discharge

of brines requiringheav

dilution,

and on the water quality criteria to afford protection in

other cases.

This

is particularly important in light

of the overwhelm-

ing testimony

that relatively

innocuous dissolved solids often exceed

the limits earlier proposed

as

a result of natural groundwater backqrounc

water conservation through recycling,

and the addition of chemicals

to reduce concentrations

of more harmful contaminants.

Chromium.

There i~disagreement as to the toxicity of chromium.

Traditional

learning

has

been

that

hexavalent

chromium

is

extremely

toxic

both

to

aquatic

life

and

to

man,

and

water

quality

criteria

are

0,05~ng/l

for

the

hexavalent

form.

Trivalent

chromium

has

been thought

much

less

toxic,

and

its

existing

stream

criteria

are set at

1,0.

Mr.

Dodge suggests

that

the toxicity of hexava1en~

chromium has been much

exaggerated

and consequently proposes

a

much relaxed effluent standard

of 1.0

for each

form

on

small

streams

and

5.0

on

large,

in view

of the costs of

chromium

3—413

---

reduction.

Our initial proposals, based upon

the water quality

criteria, were 0.05 and 1.0 respectively.

McKee and Wolf’s highly regarded treatise Water Quality

Criteria,

which contains

a very extensive literature

survey,

supports Dodge

to the extent of casting severe doubt

as to the

acute toxicity

of hexavalent chromium in trace concentrations

either

to fish

or to man.

But McKee

and Wolf seem to us to present

solid evidence justifying

a very

low hexavalent~chromium stream

standard

on the order

of 0.05 mg/l

for the protection of the

small organisms on which

fish

feed and which therefore are indispensable

to the maintenance

of

a satisfactory aquatic environment.

Hexavalent chromium, according

to Patterson and

to Weston,

can be treated either by

ion exchange,

again with significant

credit

for product recovery,

or by reduction to the trivalent

form followed by precisitation

and filtration.

Weston reports

actual reduction

of trivalent effluents to

a range

of 0.06

mg/i

to

4 mg/l;

hexava,ient by reduction,

etc.

to 0.7

—

1.0

mg/l,’

and hexavalent by

ion exchange

to 0.03 mg/i.

Patterson described

a system for reduction and orecipitation

in use

at

IBM as reducing

total chromium

to 0.06 mg/i starting with the hexavalent; Weston

acknowledged

that

this

type

of unit was

in

common

use

in

many

locations.

Despite Dodge’s argument that chromium control

is

expensive, Weston’s figures indicate

costs

for either precipitation

or

ion

exchange comparable

to those

for standard treatment of

other metals

in the table.

Allowing for some degree of variation

in treatment efficiency and of in-stream dilution, w~today

adopt

effluent standards

of 1.0 mg/i

for trivalent chromium

and 0.3

for hoxavalent.

We

note that Patterson testified that

a total chromium standard of

0.3 would be safely achievable

by standard reduction, precipitation, and filtration.

Copper.

The

0.04 mg/i copper standard initially proposed was

derived from water quality criteria

for aquatic

life.

It was

strenuously objected

to

as entirely

too

ti,ght

to be achieved.

Patterson reports that by precipitation and filtration concentrations

in the range of 0.1

to 0.3 have been achieved,

and Weston says

0.5,

for costs comparable to those for removal of other m~tals in the

table.

The Village of Sauget

expects to be able to reach

the

range

of

0.5

to 1.0 mg/l by

lime treatment

of

a waste containing

a

large portion of industrial effluents.

To go lower, Sauget

testified, would require

a sulfide precipitation system at

2

1/2

~o

3 times the

cost.

Olin, whichhas

been designing

a

lime system to reduce

its copper discharges

by

90

to 95,

expects an effluent that will meet

a

1.0 standard, but says

that

to go any lower would require

an expensive sulfide system and

that

the best even that system has

so far consistently produced

~is an effluent

of 0.7 mg/i.

While copper can harm

fish at surprisingly low concentrations

(McKee

and Wolf recommend an aquatic water quality standard of

0.02~

have revised the effluent copper standard in light

of the tcstimon~

3

—

414

---

to reflect what is clearly achievable by ordinay treatment

moans, believing that such treatment should suffice to avoid

copper problems in the larger streams.

When problems arise as

a result of inadequate dilution, additional measures will be

required.

Today’s regulation contains a copper limit of 1.0 mg/l.

Cyanide.

Rules and Regulations

SWB-5

forbade

all

detectable

discharges of cyanide to the waters.

There are companies that

comply with this regulation by total recycling (see,

e.g.,

EPA v. Container Stapling Corp.,

$ 70—18

(March

3, 1971).

But

the standard was much objected to on the ground

that

it left the

legality of a discharge to the vagaries of analytical accuracy.

Today’s regulation accepts the premise that there should be a

numerical

limit

for

cyanide

as

for

all

other

contaminants.

The

figure

we

earlier

proposed

for

cyanide

was

0.025

mg/i.

There

is

no

doubt

in

this

record

that

it

can

be

achieved;

Patterson affins that it can be done by chlorination, among

other methods, and Weston says “zero” cyanide can be attained

at

a

cost

comparable

to

that

of

removing

individual

metals

in

the

table.

Several industrial ‘witnesses representing

firms

with cyanide problems endorsed the 0.025 limit, raising serious

questions as to the limit on di3charges to sewers, which we have

left for further considcration.

Others suggested that an 0.05

staniard should be adopted.

We have adopted the 0.025 figure as

supported by the great bulk of the evidence.

Cyanide is of course

a highly undesirable addition to water even in relatively low

concentrations.

Complex testimony by DuPont in the latest hearings

asked

that

we

redefine

cyanide

so

as

to

exclude

certain

compounds

such

as

ferrocyanide

that

are

said

to

be

hard

to

treat

and

relatively

harmless.

We

think

the

testimony contains enough qualifications

to make such a revision inadvisable.

Fluoride.

Our initial proposal for a fluoride effluent standard

was 1.0 mg/i.

This was somewhat tighter than the water quality

standards we later proposed

(1.4) for both aquatic life and public

water supply, and it posed problems for municipal treatment

plants whose influent has been deliberately dosed with as imach

1.0 mg/i of fluoride for dental purposes.

Patterson reçor

ted

that 1.0 mg/i was achievable only through relatively exotic

and

costly methods, such as ion exchange, and that 10.0 mg/J.

was a more appropriate standard to be achieved by ordinary

precipitation.

Weston and Dodge both said, however, that 1.0

was readily achievable, Weston specifying the use of alum at

costs less than those for achieving most of the metals concentrations

here proposed.

The most specific information in the record came

from Olin, which reports that its fertilizer works at Joliet

consistently reduces fluoride concentrations by standard treat-

ment from an influent of 15 mg/l to an effluent of 2.5, but that

other ions present prevent reduction as low as 1.0.

We have accepted Olin’s figur~of 2.5 mg/i,

in recognition

of the difficulties encountered in going lower and of the likelihood

of dilution in many instances to achieve the relatively lenient

stream quality standards.

3—415

---

Iron.

While iron’s toxicity

to man

is

low,

excessive iron

can cause

a

nuisance

for domestic uses

or undesirable bottom decosits.

Patterson testified that dissolved

iron can be taken

out of

solution by neutralizations

and aeration, and total

iron readily

lowered by coagulation,

sedimentation,

and filtration.

He gave

values

of

2.0 mg/i for total iron

and 0.5

for

dissolved.

Weston

adverted only to dissolved iron,

affirming reductions to

less

than

0.3 mg/i

for costs comparable

to those

for meeting other

standards

in this

table.

There was

no challenge

to this testimony.

Dodge, while agreeing

that

iron was easy to remove and could

cause

a nuisance, accented

the

0.5

figure

for dissolved hut asked

for 5.0 mg/i of total iron

in the larger streams.

Lacking evidence

that this small relaxation would cause significant cost savings, we

today set standards of 0.5 mg,’l dissolved iron and

2.0 mg/i

total.

Lead.

Highly toxic,

and with water cuaiity criteria no higher

than 0.1 mg/I,

lead

is generally conceded to be

one of

the

contaminants

that should be kept out of

the water

to the greatest

extent practicable.

Fortunately

it

is readily treatable,

at costs

lower

than most other metals,

to 0.1 mg/i by precipitation

and

filtration according to both Patterson and

Weston,

and

Dodge

approved

the 0.1 standard for even

the larger streams.

It

is

here adopted.

Testimony

from

IITRI

that

several

battery

manufacturers

were not achieving such

low levels we

do not

think

outweighs the

above

evidence.

Among

other

things

the

battery

makers

were

not

employing

flocculants

to

aid

in

coagulation.

Manganese.

The

principal

objection

to

manganese

in

water

is

that

at

rather

low

concentrations

it causes taste

and laundry

problems

in

public

supplies.

The

earlier

proposed effluent standard

of

0.05

mg/l

was

derived from existing water

cTuality

criteria

for

that

use;

the

aquatic

life

requirements

are

considerably

less

stringent.

While both. Patterson

and

Weston

report

that

an

effluent of 0.05 mg/i

can be achieved by various processes,

one

of which

at least,

according to Weston

(lime precipitation)

,

is

not excessive

in cost,

there is specific testimony from the single

large

Illinois discharger of manganese that casts doubt on such

a tight

state—wide

standard.

Carus Chemical

Co., which manufactures manganese

products,

once

discharged

400

mg/i

Of

manganese

to the Illinois River.

By

the

use of lime

it has reduced its effluent

to the range

of

5—10 mg/i

and expects, when

the bugs

of the new system are

worked out,

to achieve 1.0 consistently.

The company suggests,

as

is also noted

in Patterson’s report,

that. much

of the experience

upon

which

the

0.05

standard

is

based

is

that of plants treating

to

provide

potable

water,

and

that,

as

also

in

the

case of arsenic,

the

transfer

of

results

to

wastewaters

containing

much

higher

influent

concentrations

may

not

be

warranted.

Carus

does

acknowledge

that methods exist

to go much further,

such as

qreensand

filtration

or

the addition of potassium perrnanganate followed by

a filter,

but

at much greater

costs.

3—416

---

Bearing

in

mind

that

additional

measures

such

as

just

described

may be

necessary

in

some

cases

if

water

quality

eroblems

arise,

we today adopt

a manganese effluent standard

of

1.0 mg/i

as

representing

technology

well

within

economic

range

and

probably

sufficient

to nrotect water nudity

under most circumstances.

Mercury.

This regulation has already been adooted,

for reasons

~etai1ed

in

our

outnion

in

#R70-5

(March

31,

1971)

.

The

original

comuliance

date

of

J~nril 25,

1971

(ten days after filing with

the

Secretary of State)

is

retained.

N:ickel.

Nickel, which we have proposed should he kept to

1.0

in streams

for

the protection

of fish,

can be readily re-

moved to that

level

by

economically

reasonable

precipitation

and

filtration;

indeed

Weston

reports

effluents

as

low

as

0.1

mg/i.

There

was no contrary evidence,

and Dodge suggested

an effluent

standard of

1.0

for

all streams, which we here

adopt.

01,.

The nuisance value of oil

in

a

stream,

together

with

its

~erse

effects

on aquatic

life,

require that oil discharges be

kent to

a minimum.

We initially oronosed

a standard

of

10 mg/i,

but the evidence

suggests

that 15 mg/l

is

a more assuredly achievable

level

by

standard technicues

such

as

skimming

plus filtration,

elum efdition,

or air flotation.

Both the oil and steel industries

indicated the standard could be mat without particular difficulty,

and

15

mg/l

is the

level of ready

achievement

mentioned

by

Patterson.

Dodce, who

first

te~tified

that

his

company’s

use

of

emulsified oils caused difficulty in maintaining an effluent of

15 mg/l consistently, ultimately proposed

a standard of

15 mg/i

for

larger

streams.

There was

some controversy over whether the hexane soluble

test here referred

to is the best.

liexane solubility

is the test

utilized by

the Metropolitan

Sanitary District;

it was endorsed

by

an

oil industry representative;

and it

is

the basis

for

the

15 mg/l standard supported by Patterson.

There was testimony

that

the hexane

test included such materials as edible animal

and vegetable oils,

waxes, and

soaps,

whose effect on

the stream

is different from that

of petroleum and which

tend to break down

in ordinary sewage treatment.

The

City

of Chicago questioned

this

testimony

in part.

In any event, because these materials

are

readily so treated and because they are undesirable additions

to the

stream

if

for

no other reason than their oxygen demand, today’s

regulation

retains

the

hexane

soluble

test.

We

have,

at the Agency’s

request,

allowed

the use of

alternative

equivalent

methods.

pH.

Our

initial

orooosal

set

effluent

pH

standards

at

stream

~ality

levels,

because

neutralization,

as Patterson affirmed,

is

feasible

and

commonly

practiced

by

the

use

of

rather

inexpensive

chemicals.

But

the

testimony

noints

out

that

a somewhat more

relaxed standard

s’i 11

enìcourage the oetimum nH

in various processes

for

reducing

other

contaminants;

that neutralization significantly

increases

the

dissolved

solids

in

the

effluent;

and

that

in

many

cases

stream dilution will serve

to

avoid

any harm

to

water

users

3

—

417

---

if

the

standard

is

somewhat

rd

axed.

in view

of

those

considerations

and

the

attendant

cost

savings

,

which

arc

szd

ci

to

be concH

clerab

e

we

today

ucloat

a

cdl

effluent range

of

5

to

10

suhi oct

as

:ioieys

to stricter

renuiremo

ate

wnerc

necessary

to

meet:

water

ouclaty

criteria.

Phenol.

The

toxicity

of

ohenols

to

acai: tic

life

I cads

Dodne

E~recommc:nd a ohenol

standard

of

0.05

mg/i

for

the

larger

soruems

We bad eroposed

first

0.

2

and

later

C)

.

,

which

wore

based u:~oa

aquatic

ii fe

standards

;

standards

for

:)ubli

c

water

scooP

as

we

proposed

far

lower.

Patteroon

renorto

that

b.

a

co~sbinaLi en

of

methods such

as

solvents

,

hi

oloqi

ccl

Lee

tnent

,

and oh lcricc; Lion

or

carbon

adsorption

an

effluent.

of

0.

1

faq/I

caa

ac

achieved.

The

oil

industry

testified

that

0

.

2

hut

not

0

.

1.

was

cons i

stoutly

achievable

from

bid

occocal

oxidation tanks

,

and flonsanto

,

does:

that

levels

lower

than

5

to

8

1lg/’i

can

be

a ttui.nod

with

carbon

absorption,

testified

that

it

was

able

to achieve

0.3

mq/l

in

its effluent and

that

to

roach

0

.

1

would

rocjuire chlorination

at.

$1.25

per

thousand

gallons.

On

the

basis

of

this

testimony

it scums clear that

the

technol~civ

exists

to

reduce

choice

a

to virtually

any

level——

Patterson

reported.

some

extreme

low

levels——but

that

costs

may

begin

to

increase

markcdTh: below

chest

0

.

2

or

0

.

3 mq/ I

in

actica I

~ractc

cc.

Coo;

ercv:nC;ii

aad

a

I

.qoo

of

tue

a act

that:

relatively

email

di

ci

Lion

will

reduce

an effluent

of

that

concentrat

ion

to

levels

coccs:Ls!cnt:

wit h

cceuatic

life

reccuir;:-

ments

,

ce

today

adopt

a general

e:ffue~it standard

for

c:henol

of

0.

3

mg/i.

Tighter

measure

may

:osovc

necessary

in

;

nd~viUua~

cases to protect

existing

sources

of public water supply.

Selenium.

Selenium

is

an

uncles

itch

c

contaminant;

it

has been

found

to

kill

fish

at.

concentroti

ens

of

2

.

0

mq/l

,

and

water

ciocclit

standards

for

public

water

ens’ lies

are

far

lower

at 0.01.

There

was

little

testimony

as

to

removal

methods

,

a

large--scale

removal

has

anparent

y

not

been

much

neacti

cod

.

There

is

bench

scale

experience

with

ion

exchange,

an

theoretically

it

is

said

to

be

feasible

to

precipitate

the

element

as

selenate.

No

coat

or

effluent

figures

are

arailable.

Dodge

recommend:.;

an

effluent

standard

of

0.01

mg/I,

which

we

had

initially

proposed.

Because

of

the

toxicity

of

selenium,

it

seems

desirable

to

adopt

an

effluent

standard

even

in

the

absence of conclusive

evidence

as

to

removal

technology,

in

order

to ;;rotoct

legitimate water

uses.

Dodge

testified

that

the

very strict 0.01 standard

was

attainable.

Since

a

somewhat

higher level

is

acccatab.e

for

aquatic

life,

we

today

adopt

a standard

of

1.0,

rccoqnizi

ng

both

that

h.iuher

control

may

sometimes

be

necessary

to

protect

public

water

suspl.ics

and

that

we

may

later

discover

in

a

vnriasco

proceeding

more

information

as

to

treaLab~lity

that

may

result

in

a

reexamInation

of

the

st:arcdard.

3—

418

---

Silver.

Highly toxic, readily removable, and valuable enough to

i~kTTonexchange an attractive alternative to precipitation and

filtration, silver should be kept out of the water to the extent

practicable.

Patterson and Weston, without contradiction, report

field values of 0.1 mg/l by the use of ferric chloride for costs

comparable to those required by other standards in this table.

Water quality requiromqnts are lower still,

and

we adopt as

proposed an effluent standard of 0.1 mg/l.

Sulfate.

No standard is adopted for reasons given in the discussion

of

chlorides,

above.

Suspended Solids.

Existing effluent standards do not make

altogether

clear

whether inorganic suspended solids such as

sand and grit must meet the limits for “suspended solids.”

The existing standards expressly speak of “deoxygenating wastes,”

indicating that they are based upon treatment needs

and

capabilities relating to domestic sewage and putrescible

industrial wastes.

There is a need to keep down other

suspended solids too in order to prevant excessive turbidity

and harmful bottom depositr, hut the relevant numbers are not

the

same.

Republic Steel testified that it meets the 5 mg/i

standard by the use of tertiary filters but that for such relatively

innocuous materials such expensive treatment should not be re-

quired.

Deere

&

Co. said that by standard coagulation it could

not meet the strictest solids standards.

Dr. John Pfeffer,

for the Institute, urged separate provision for inorganic or

fixed solids

and

reconmtended a standard of 10 to 15

mg/i

in

order to protect against turbidity and

bottom

deposits.

Our

proposed final draft included on this recoimnendation a separate

standard of 15 mg/i for inorganic suspended solids, changing

thc

reference in regard to deoxygenating wastes to organic suspended

solids.

Our

language

was

poorly

chosen,

as

it

unintentionally

made much more lenient the standard for oxygen-demanding wastes.

We have clarified the provision to make the 15 mg/i a test for

total

suspended

solids

from

sources

other

than

those

discharging

sewage

or

other

oxygen-demanding

wastes.

Total Dissolved Solids.

As discussed in connection with chlorides

abovi, the originally proposed effluent standard of 750 mg/i

seems unreasonable.

In order not to impose excessive costs without

corresponding benefits we here adopt a standard of 3500 mg/l,

which should be attainable without treatment except for truly

brackish waters that are simply

too

strong to be discharged

without causing stream damage.

We agree with Dr. Pipes that

within limits dilution is an appropriate answer for relatively

innocuous dissolved solids.

We have adopted the Agency’s suggestion,

in line with many other regulations, that in most cases, even

within the 3500 limit, solids are not to be increased more than

750 mg/i above background, and Dr. Pipes’s advice that 3500 is so

high

it

should

be

met

at

all

times

to

avoid

harmful

slugs.

3—41g

---

Zinc.

Aquatic

life

zinc

standard;;

are

1.0

me/i;

this

level

can

readily

be

ach:Lev?xrl

in

effluents

without

tha

necessity

for

undesirable

mixin

zones

by

slosle

crecia

tat

Ion,

according

to

the

unchallenged

i?vidence

of

Patterson

one

of

Weston.

Costs

are

as

for

other

metals

on

the

list.

Indeed,

if

filtration

is

used,

Weston

renorts

values

in

the

rouge

of

0.

1

to

0.

3

mg/i,

which

is

better

than

tice

rcc;uirecl

stream

c’ocuiitv.

We

adout

a;

before,

an

effluent

standard

of

1.0

mg/i.

Tota±

Metals.

The

originally

orososed

ci fI uent

standard

for

total.

metals

was

based

on

possible

synergistic

effects

rather

than

on

any

evidence

as

to

achievable

concentrations

,

and

we

have

no

evidence

to

sucoort

it

as

economically

or

techoiccii.y

feasible.

It

is

here

omitted.

601

Systems

R~liabi 1it~

.

Paragraph

(a)

re~uirinq

ccc otectio;i

ccccinat

malfunctions

ic:

taken

from

the

Aqencv

s

cuidc

Ii nec

n

pp

2024

stating the

important

general

or:incmccle

a:

an

?;rcforcoabie

regulation

and

leaving

the

details

t:o

the

Agency.

Such

orotective

measures

were endorsed by

several

induetri

oiL

witnosse;;

during

our

hearings.

Paragratch

(b)

is

a

modified

nersien

of

:~renen:

rccsuirc.mc’nt:

relating

to

dikes

and

the

I ike

to

orevent

the

ecces;:

of

bazardo;a

materials

in

the

event

of

a

spill.

Our

i ciitial

dra

t

:naddi

thee

requirement

of

such

measures

abeol ute,

arch

evidence

~ucjqcet.:

this

i s excessive

for

each

reasons

as

the

ccvoidance

of

fire

hazards.

The

revised

form

recuii~es

reasonable

meaccuec;s

to be

taken but

leavea the

details

to

be

-worked

out

in

individual

cases

for

want

of

sufficient evidence

suoc’ort

StOre

crecise

guidelines.

Part

IX:

Permits.

Those

provisions

are deferred pending

hearings

on

an

alternative

Agency

oropo;;al.

Part

X:

Implementation

Plan.

This

acart

recuires

the

submission

of

programs

for

comnliancca

by

individual

sources

subject

to

neci

effluent

limitations,

by

anaiog

to

the

practice

ai

the

old

Air

Pollutton

Control

Board.

This

crovi;-ion

has

been

ceneralI’,’

applauded.

Schedules nay

be anoroved

by

tao

Agency

only

if

they

conform

to

the

timetables

specified

in

the

rccqulati

one

and

if

the

program

appears

adequate

to

achieoe

comoliocnce.

Comaliance

crogranca

must

be

submitted

by

July

1,

1972

for

most

of

the

coatarninaicts

for

which

standards

are

adonted

tcdov;

the

d~tu

for

nitrogen,

which

has

a

much

later

comoliance

date,

will

be

set

after

the

Janvarv

hearings

along

with

orcgram

idling

dates

for

1300,

suecended

eel ida

and

combined

sewers.

Interim

cem,clianco

dates

arc

similarly

deferred.

Mr.

Durnel le

will

file

a

seccarate

cpknion

mica

ting certain

differences

with

the

numbers

adopted,

3

—

420

---

ORDER

1.

The following new provisions

are hereby added to the

Rules and Regulations

of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board:

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

RULES AND REGULATIONS

CHAPTER

4:

WATER POLLUTION

PART

I:

INTRODUCTION

104

Definitions:

As used in this Chapter,

the following

terms shall

have

the meanings specified:

“Act” means the Illinois Environmental Protection Act;

“AgencY” means

the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency;

“Basin” means

the area tributary

to

the

designated body of

water;

“Board”

means

the

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board;

“Calumet

River

System”

means

the

Calumet

River,

the

Grand

Calumet

River,

the

Little

Calumet River downstream from

its confluence with

the Grand Calurnet,

the Calumet-Sag

Channel, and the Calumet Harbor Basin;

“Chicago River System” means

the Chicago River and its

Branches,

the North Shore Channel,

and the Chicago Sani-

tary and Ship Canal;

“Combined Sewer” means

a

sewer receiving both wastewater and

land

runoff;

“Construction” means commencement

of

on—site

fabrication,

erection,

or

installation

of

a

treatment

works,

sewer,

or

wastewater

source;

or

the

reinstallation at

a new site of

any

existing

treatment

works,

sewer,

or

wastewater

source;

“Effluent”

means

any

wastewater discharged,

directly or

indirectly,

to the waters of the State or to

any storm

sewer,

and the runoff from land used for the disposition

of wastewater or sludges, hut does not otherwise include

land runoff;

3

—

421

---

“Industrial Wastes” means

any solid,

liquid, or gaseous

wastes resulting from any process or excess energy of in-

dustry, manufacturing, trade,

or business

or from the

development,

processing,

or recovery,

except for agri-

cultural

crop raising,

of any natural resource;

“Land Runoff” means water reaching the waters of the

State as runoff resulting from precipitation;

“New Source” means

any wastewater source,

the construction

of which

is commenced on or after the effective

date of

the applicable provisions of this Chapter;

“Other Wastes” means

garbage,

refuse, wood residues,

sand,

lime,

cinders,

ashes,

offal, night soil,

silt,

oil,

tar,

dye stuffs,

acids,

chemicals and all other substances

not

sewage or industrial waste whose discharge would cause water

pollution

or

a violation

of the effluent or water quality

standards;

“Person” means

any individual, partnership,

co—partnership,

firm,

company,

corporation, association,

joint stock company,

trust, estate,

political subdivision,

state agency,

or any

other

legal entity,

or their

legal representative,

agent

or assigns;

“Sanitary Sewer” means

a sewer that carries wastewater to-

gether with incidental

land runoff;

“Sewage” means water—carried human and related wastes

from

any source together with associated land runoff;

“Sewer” means

a pipe or conduit for carrying either waste—

water or land runoff,

or both;

“STORET” means

the national water quality data svsteat of

the Federal Environmental Protection Agency;

“Storm Sewer” means

a

sewer intended

to receive only land

runoff;

“Treatment Works” means individually

or collectively those

constructions or devices, except

sewers, used

for collecting,

pumping, treating, or disposing of wastewaters or

for the

recovery of by—products

from such wastewater;

3

---

422

---

“Wastewater” means

sewage,

industrial waste, or other

waste,

or

any

combination

of these, whether treated or

untreated,

plus

any admixed land runoff;

“Wastewater

Source” means

any equipment,

facility, or

other point source of any type whatsoever which discharges

wastewater, directly or indirectly

(except through

a sewer

tributary to

a treatment works),

to

the

waters

of

the

State;

“Waters” means

all accumulations of water,

surface and

underground, natural,

and artificial, public and private,

or

parts

thereof,

which

are

wholly

or

partially

within,

flow

through,

or

border

upon

the State of Illinois,

except that sewers and treatment works

are

not

included

except

as specifically mentioned;

provided,

that nothing

herein contained shall authorize the

use

of

natural

or

otherwise protected waters

as

sewers or treatment works.

105

Analytical Testing.

All methods

of sample collection, preservation,

and

analysis

used

in applying

any of the rules

and regulations

in

this Chapter shall be in accord with those prescribed

in “Standard Methods

for the Examination of Water and Waste

Water,” Thirteenth Edition, or with other generally accepted

procedures.

PART

II:

WATER QUALITY CRITERIA

(to be published separately)

PART

III:

WATER USE DESIGNATIONS

(to be published separately)

PART

IV:

EFFLUENT

STANDARDS

This

Part

prescribes

the

maximum

concentrations

of

various

contaminants

that

may

he

discharged

to

the

waters

of

the

State.

401

General Provisions.

(a)

Dilution.

Dilution of

the effluent from a treat-

ment works or from any wastewater

source,

is not

acc’eptable

as

a method of treatment of wastes in

order to meet

the standards set forth

in this

part.

Rather,

it shall be

the obligation of any

per~oridischarging contaminants

of any kind to

the waters of the state to provide the best de-

gree of treatment of wastewater consistent with

---

technological feasibility, economic reasonable-

ness

and sound engineering judgment.

In making

determinations

as

to what kind of treatment is

the “best degree of treatment” within

the meaning

of this paragraph,

any person shall consider the

following:

(1)

what degree of waste reduction can be

achieved by process change,

improved

housekeeping,

and recovery of individual

waste components for reuse;

and

(2)

whether individual process wastewater

streams should be segregated or combined.

In any case, measurement of contaminant concentrations

to determine compliance with the effluent standards

shall be made

at the point immediately following

the

final treatment process and before mixture with other

waters, unless another point is designated by

the

Agency in

an individual permit, after consideration

of the elements contained

in this paragraph.

If

necessary the concentrations so measured shall be

recomputed to exclude the effect of

any dilution that

is

improper under this Rule.

(b)

Background Concentrations.

Because the effluent

standards

in this Part are based upon concentrations

achievable with conventional treatment technology

that

is largely unaffected by ordinary levels of

contaminants

in intake water, they

are absolute

standards that must be met without subtracting back-

ground concentrations.

However,

it

is not the

intent of these regulations

to require users to

clean up contamination caused essentially by up-

stream sources or to require treatment when only

traces of contaminants are added

to the background.

Compliance with the numerical effluent standards

is therefore not required when effluent concentrations

in excess of

the standards result entirely from in—

fluent contamination, evaporation,

and/or the inciden-

tal addition

of traces

of materia1~not utilized or

produced in

the activity

that is the source of the

waste.

3

—

424

---

(c)

Averaging.

Except as otherwise specifically pro-

vided in this

Part,

compliance with

the numerical

standards

in

this Part

shall

be

determined

on

the

basis of 24-hour composite samples.

In addition, no

contaminant

shall

at

any

time

exceed

five

times

the

numerical standard prescribed

in this

Part.

402

Violation of Water Quality Standards.

In

addition

to

the

other

requirements

of

this

Part,

no effluent shall,

alone or in combination with other sources,

cause

a violation

of any applicable water quality standard.

When the Agency

finds that

a discharge that would comply with

effluent

standards

contained

in this Chapter would cause or

is

causing

a violation of water quality standards,

the Agency

shall

take appropriate action under Section 31 or Section

39

of the

Act

to require the discharge

to meet whatever effluent

limits are necessary

to ensure compliance with

the water

cual~ty standards.

When such

a violation

is caused by the

cumulative effect of more than one source,

several sources

mar be joined

in an enforcement or variance proceeding,

and

measures

for necessary effluent reductions will be deter—

minced

on the basis of technical feasibility,

economic reason-

ableness,

and fairness to all dischargers.

403

Offensive

Discharges.

In addition to the other requirements

of this

Part,

no effluent shall contain settleable solids,

floating debris,

visible

oil,

grease,

scum,

or sludge solids.

Color, odor

and turbidity must be reduced

to below obvious levels.

404

Deoxygenatin;

Wastes.

(to

be

published

separately)

405

Bacteria.

(to be published separately)

406

Nitrogen.

Ammonia Nitrogen as N.

(STORET number 00610)

.

No

effluent

from

any

source

which discharges

to the Illinois

River,

the Chicago River System,

or the Calumet River

System,

and whose untreated waste load is 50,000 or more population

eccuivalents shall contain more than

2.5 mg/l of ammonia

nitrogen

as

i’3 during the months of April through October,

or

4

oq/l

at other times,

after December

31,

1977.

3

—

425

---

407

Phosphorus.

(STORET number

00665)

(a)

No effluent discharged within the Lake Michigan

Basin

shall contain more than

1.0 mg/l

of phosphorus

as

P after December

31,

1971

(R70-6,

adopted Jan.

6,

1971)

(b)

No effluent from any source which discharges within

the

Fox River Basin

and whose untreated waste

load

is 1500 or more population equivalents shall contain

more

than

1.0 mg/l of phosphorus

as

P after December

31,

1973.

408

Additional Contaminants

(a)

The following

levels of contaminants

exceeded by any effluent:

shall

not be

CONSTITUENT

STORET NUMBER

CONCENTP~tTTON (mg/l)

Arsenic

(total)

Barium

(total)

Cadmium

(total)

Chromium

(total

hexavalent)

Chromium

(total

triva lent)

Copper

(total)

Cyanide

Fluoride

(total)

Iron

(total)

Iron

(dissolved)

Lead

(total)

Manganese

(total)

Mercury

(total)

Nickel

(total)

Oil

(hexane

solubles

or equivalent)

pH

Phenols

Selenium

(total)

Silver

Zinc

(total)

Total Suspended Solids

(from sources other

than those covered

by

Rule

404)

01002

01007

01027

01032

01033

01042

00720

00951

01045

01046

01051

01055

71900

01067

00550

00400

32731)

01145

01077

01092

00530

0.

25

2.0

0.15

0.3

1.0

1. 0

0.025

2.5

2.0

0.5

0.1

1.0

0.0005

1.0

15.0

range

5_l0*

0.3

1.0

0.1

1.0

15.0

*

The pH limitation

is

not subject to averaging and must

be met at all

times.

3

--

425

---

(b)

Total Dissolved Solids

(STORET

number

00515)

shall

not be increased more than 750 mg/i above back-

ground concentration levels unless caused by re-

cycling or other pollution abatement practices,

and in no event

shall exceed 3500 mg/i at any time.

(c)

Compliance with the limitations of this Rule 408

shall be achieved by the following dates:

(i)

with respect to mercury, by April

25,

1971;

(ii)

with respect

to all other specified con-

taminants,

(A)

New sources shall comply on the

effective date of this regulation;

(B)

Existing sources shall comply by

December 31, 1973.

PART V:

MONITORING AND REPORTING

(to be published separately)

PART VI:

PERFORMANCE CRITERIA

This part contains specific requirements and prohibitions

concerning existing and potential sources of water pollution.

601

Systems Reliability.

(a)

Malfunctions.

All treatment works and associated

facilities shall be

so constructed and operated as

to minimize violations

of applicable standards dur-

ing such contingencies as flooding, adverse weather,

power failure, equipment failure, or maintenance,

through such measures as multiple units, holding.

tanks, duplicate power sources, or such other meas-

ures as may be appropriate.

(b)

Spills.

All reasonable measures, including where

appropriate the provision of catchment areas, relief

vessels, or entrapment dikes, shall be taken to pre-

vent any spillage of contaminants from causing water

pollution.

602

Combined Sewers and Treatment Plant Bypasses.

(to be published separately)

3

—

427

---

PARTS

VII

—

VIII

(to be published separately)

PART

IX:

PERMITS

(~obe published separately)

PART

X:

IMPLEMENTATION

PLAN

(other

sections

to

be

published

separately)

1002

Project

-Completion

Schedu-le.

(a)

Any

person

who

owns

or

operates

any

sewer

treatment

works or wastewater source that requires modification

or additional controls to meet any applicable effluent

standard contained within this Part

shall file a

Project Completion Schedule with the Agency.

The

Project Completion Schedule shall include

a description

of the wastewater source, the contaminants to be con-

trolled, the additional controls or treatment required,

and a time schedule for the project’s completion which

must meet the applicable deadlines.

The approval by

the Agency of

a Project Completion Schedule contained

therein shall constitute

a defense

to any enforcement

action respecting the requirements whose compliance

the program is designed to achieve.

(b)

Project Completion Schedules shall be filed in accord-

ance with the following timetable:

(i)

For compliance with Rules 407 and 408,

by July

1,

1972;

(additional dates to be published separately)

2.

Final action on other portions of the proposed

final draft

of

November

11,

1971

is

hereby

deferred

pending

further

hearings

as

authorized

December

27,1971.

I,

Christan

Moff~tt,

Clerk

of

the

Pollution Control Board,

certify

that

the

Board

adopted

the

above

ppinion

and

Order

this

~

day

of

January,

1972

by

vote

of

4f’-

0

3

*

42~